Nothing's wrong with a bit of responsibility and sustainability, either, - which incidentally makes all the above possible in the first place.

As for the emotional stuff, I'll keep out of it. The rich color and wonderful flavor of whale meat would make me partial to one side.

Doubtful, but certainly possible. But the risk to the human species from the continued hyper exploitation of the oceans is also real.

Nobody on the ship deserves to die. Do the whales deserve to die and go extinct because a few people can make a buck or two off them?

At best it would be manslaughter (as opposed to whaleslaughter). There would be no evidence that Watson's intent was anything other than to uphold the ban.

Do you think nothing like this has ever been done before? There would be rescue boats on sight, multiple greenpeace craft, and so on. Watson himself would attempt to rescue any men overboard, i have no doubt.


Who said anything about iraq? Only an idiot would think that is an example of justified human casualties...

Im very on topic. We are having an ethical discussion and it is more than appropriate to introduce like situations to clarify what we are talking about.

So, what is your position. Do you think there is ever a time when innocent human casualties are justified in order to prevent a greater tragedy?

Keep in mind that this analogy is not really fair, since the Japanese whalers are not the innocent bystanders so often killed by american bombs.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Those who make a living at sea will disagree with your claim that collisions at sea are a small risk.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

OK, here it is:

"I hope that if Watson actually follows through with his threat that no whale or humans get killed or maimed. But I will take the side of Watson and the Whales any day over a bunch of exploitive money grubbers simply looking to make a few dollars off the industrial level slaughter of dozens of whales.
"

What is you point Matt? I don't see any contradiction.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Im not disagreeing with that claim. But anybody who does make a living at sea would surely note the risk is minimized when collisions at sea are expected, and can be planned for, and there are rescue boats in the area, and so on...

It is was an unexpected and unplanned for event, yes, the risk would be greater.

And i still recognize the risk is serious in any regard. But it is much smaller to the whalers than it is to the whales or to Watson.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

As I don't know too much about Greenpeace's eco-terror operations any longer, do they usually have rescue boats present when they plan on colliding with boats?

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Thorshammer brought sovereignty into this question. I believe sovereignty was merely a front and not the actual issue of Thorshammer's line of argument and therefore made a parallel to Iran's sovereignty in order to find out. It was not an attempt to shift the topic more than hanging the topic on an issue of sovereignty would.

You are "taking the side" of a man who is planning to engage in an act which will endanger multiple lives, and could easily result in multiple fatalities.

So yes, that's supporting premeditated attempted murder. Possibly premeditated mass murder, depending on how his attack goes.

If I am misrepresenting you, I apologize. You do, however, appear to be supporting Watson's planned attack.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

yes. I strongly believe the consequences of not stopping these japanese whalers and other industrial level exploiters of the land and oceans is of far greater tragedy than the lives of a few japanese fisherman. I dont want to see them dead, and i agree with moon that it would be great if there was some non-lethal way to sabotage the hunt.

Murder requires intent to kill. Its obvious that is not Watson's intent.

I support defending the life-supporting systems of the earth using whatever means necessary. This may or may not result in some people getting hurt or killed. (i know one thing for certain, the system i am in favor of dismantling using 'whatever means necessary' is responsible for countless millions of deaths and injuries due to all things ranging from toxic chemicals in our rivers, wars of aggression for access to resources, and a warming earth resulting in starvation and disease for billions).

If the IC cannot and will not act to protect this world from human economic practices, it will absolutely come down to people like Watson who have the courage to do it themselves.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

To be honest i don't know about this particular operation in all its detail, but i have seen films of these things in the past and read about them, and they are typically very well orchestrated in order to prevent the loss of human life. Watson and his colleagues do not want to go to jail for manslaughter. They want to continue their work.

BTW, i prefer the term eco-saboteur. The real terrorists are the industrial rapists and profiteers of the land and oceans.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

If anybody is curious look on youtube for examples of what ramming really means in this context. Apparently ramming is not exclusive to greepeace, as the whalers themselves have taken to ramming greenpeace vessels.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Forgive me, but I think this is a willfully naive way of viewing what Watson has threatened to do.

It's kind of like saying that if Watson placed a large bomb on the whaling ship and set it off, it would not be murder becuase his intent was not to kill, but to stop the whaling.

Watson has threatened to ram another ship at sea. This is plainly a use of force that could result in serious injury or death.

So again, you are supporting the murder of the whaling crews to prevent whaling.

And if Watson happens to kill a dozen or so people, no biggie, right?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I agree. Iran has a sovreign right to pursue nukes. Likewise, it is the sovreign right of, lets say the United States (or any other nation), to do anything within its power to stop them, should they so choose to.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Just so we are clear on the issue of ramming other vessels at sea, here is how Greenpeace views it:

So let's dispense with any fantasy notions that Watson isn't threatening to deliberately put lives in severe danger.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Wow, this thread blew up in a hurry.

I know a little bit about this subject (I do research related to commercial fishing currently and actual commercial fishing has paid the bills for me a couple of summers in the past). I can go on and on with this topic, but I'll keep it brief (I'll try anyway).

The history of the whaling industry in Japan is actually a really interesting one, especially since it really doesn't make that much money related to the cost of protecting it to the extreme that the Japanese government does. The research angle has been used to keep it alive since the time of the ban, but there is nothing "research" about it. There is a clause in the whaling treaty (which Japan is a signatory of) which allows for the use of whales that are taken for research. The spirit of that clause was to allow the whales taken for research back in the day to not go to waste for native peoples, but Japan has exploited that loophole. And it has been shown repeatedly by some very CSI-like DNA research that Japan has been whaling in places where they said they weren't and aren't supposed to (waters between China and Japan), and species that they are not supposed to be whaling. Add to the fact that real whale researchers have developed techniques to study whales by not taking them, and it's pretty obvious that the research angle is bogus (I don't even think you can get the "data" that supposedly get on these research cruises if you asked).

The problem is that the Japanese population is fed in large part by fishing, probably more so than any other country. The demand is high, so fishing rules are often broken. They also have the largest fishing fleet in the world, and often overfish all over the place. When I went up to Alaska to fish, the commercial industy up there was (and probably still is) not fond of the Japanese for good reason. They have been known to be pirates when it comes to obeying fishing laws.

The whaling industry, in a way, is the line in the sand for Japan. They know if that if they submit to pressure on that front, they might have to submit to pressure on the real industry of commercial fishing. But, this is a big issue with the Western public (I call it the Free Willy syndrome, people love whales), so they have to be careful on how they do it because they don't want to hurt the market for fishing, which is becoming bigger all the time. So, you get this political dance, with Japan claiming that it is for "research" when it is anything but the case. It's all about keeping the industry alive until they can get enough countries in the commission to overturn the ban on whaling (the U.S. and Japan have both supported other countries financially to support their side on the commission, ones that you would never dream of havung any stake or care in whales. All to stack the deck for their side).

And the tide of the commission is starting to sway to Japan now. That is why they have expanded their "research", including species like humpbacks that everyone knows are very vulnerable to population crashes (ie long-lived, late-maturing, slow-growing species) and are well below carrying capacity (humpbacks were the poster children for this for many years).

So, I understand why groups like Greenpeace are pissed off. But, I don't support their methods, which are counter-productive and end up pissing off the very people you are trying to get on your side. I think they would be better off in the long run to go about it another way.

And, yes, any collision at sea is not good. I don't even care if you are at the boat launch when it happens, it's never good. Fishing on the open ocean is a lot like being on a spaceship sometimes. You can radio mission control to let them know what is happening, but it doesn't mean they are going to be able to help you. You are on your own out there.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb